The Two-Party Illusion

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil.” - John Adams

The Great Illusion of the two-party system is that it allows the voter a choice – usually between a liberal and a conservative government. The reality is that, whichever party wins the election, the government is, in truth, a totalitarian one. The “choice” is a mere distraction from the true objective.

Recently, an American college student, Justin Snyder, commented on his choice for his country’s next president and his reasons for it. Mister Snyder said, in part,

"I support Hillary Clinton for president … When you add up her knowhow, leadership, and experience, it's clear that Hillary Clinton is a perfect fit to be the commander-in-chief of the largest military the world has ever seen … The thing is, we've been trying the free market thing for centuries. All we have to show for it is a super wealthy class of people who run the country. What we need is someone to represent the common man, and that someone is Hillary Rodham Clinton.”

Mister Snyder has done quite well in absorbing the modern liberal party line, one that both advances itself on the concept of collectivism, yet reverses itself on its position just two generations ago that war is an evil concept, promoted by conservatives in an effort to control the world.

His comments are not unusual, and that’s what makes them significant. He’s a modern, educated, effectively indoctrinated liberal. His political counterpart is a modern, educated, effectively indoctrinated conservative. Together, they comprise the backbone of governmental dominance over a people: different party, same blind acceptance of political party dogma.

John Adams had it right in his 1780 letter to Jonathan Jackson, as quoted above. He understood that the old method of thought control – that of kings ordering their vassals what to believe – had had its day. It had never been fully effective, as the vassal was free to decide whether he believed the king. But, as early as 1780, the future would belong to those politicians who were skilled in giving the public “A” and “B” choices.

People need to believe that they have a choice. Interestingly, though, they seem to be content with only two choices. A skilled politician therefore limits the number of choices to two and, today, this is the way it’s done in most “advanced” countries. Whether it’s Democrat vs. Republican, or Tory vs. Labour, there are two dominant parties. Each is represented by a group of individuals seeking to gain or maintain public office.

Initially, in order to sell the two-party concept to voters, it’s important for each party to have a philosophical identity. These two identities would seem to need to be based on opposing primary principles or ideologies, such as a free market system vs. collectivism, or empire-building warfare vs. a commitment to peace.

The US did, indeed, follow this route in developing its own primary sports teams, the Democrats and the Republicans. And, along the way, it learned that the public can be best manipulated if they are blindly devoted to either one team or the other. (Those in the red T-shirts detest those in the blue, and vice versa.)

Once this blind devotion has been achieved, it becomes possible to dispense with the extreme polarity of principles and ideology. As stated above, only two generations ago, there was a “collectivism and peace” party and a “free market and empire” party in the US. What they had in common, however, was that both required an increasingly larger government to support its objectives.

Today, the US political system has evolved to the point that the principles and ideology are disappearing. Today, Democrats fully accept and even encourage overseas aggression. This has been achieved through the illusion of “terrorism.” Similarly, the Republicans have watered down their commitment to a free market system through the soma of ever-widening entitlements.

No longer is it necessary that the two dogmas are polar opposites. They can only be five degrees apart from each other, yet each team of supporters fully believes his team is morally right and the other team is morally wrong. Meanwhile, they’re both headed toward the same warfare/welfare end. And of course, both teams fully accept the concept that an ever-expanding government role is necessary in achieving these ends.

But how is it possible that the principles and ideologies have been virtually erased? After all, the very idea of principles is that they are not based on popularity, but on inner conviction. Well, truth be told, the great majority of people have no real moral compass at all; no real inner sense of convictions. Their convictions can be manipulated in such a way that the portion of the brain that wishes to deal with convictions can be redirected into areas that are of little consequence.

On the surface of it, this seems like a bold and even radical statement, yet, as we can readily see, as long as never-ending debates are maintained over the less vital issues, such as abortion rights, gay rights, etc., a people can be distracted away from primary principles. Therefore, the government has the ability to create the illusion that a two-party system exists when, in truth, as the caption below states,

The concept of a government as a body of individuals that are chosen by election to represent the voters is a good one, but it’s not a concept that’s shared by those who are elected. Those who are elected almost unanimously see the concept as one in which the rulers are determined. They have no illusion about representation, although they do understand that they must give the impression to voters that they see themselves as representatives. Rulers seek to rule. All other concerns are secondary.

Over time, those elected will look for every opportunity to increase their own power (both politically and economically). Consequently, the longer a governmental system exists in a given country, the more it will deteriorate toward tyranny.

At some point, there is, in almost every country, a rebellion of some sort that causes a reset – a return to a more democratic structure where a greater level of representation once again takes place. Then the deterioration, inexorably, begins anew. This is why Thomas Jefferson was so fervent that, every so often, a revolution is essential.

It should be pointed out that the US is not alone in this deterioration. In all fairness, many other countries are in a similar state. Increasingly, people in these countries recognise that conditions are becoming tyrannical. Yet, most hold out the hope that the next election will somehow magically result in a return to basic freedoms. This will not be the case. Deterioration is baked in the cake. Regardless of the candidate, regardless of the party, regardless of the country, the outcome will be the same.

But, as stated previously, the deterioration process is a very long one and, at any given time in history, there are countries that are not so far along in the process. A bright future does indeed exist, but it lies not in the hope of a reversal by political leaders. It lies in choosing one’s domicile – one where basic freedoms remain.

Most on this site especially (not so much on the other sites I post on) love to blame government or the state for the world's problems.

Many blame (myself included) the dictatorial power of corporations as a bigger threat to freedom.

The State is big because lobbyists and corporations want it that way to shut down competition, and corporations are dictatorial and powerful because the State's regulations allow them to be that way.

Then we get the obsolete irrelevant debate of whether the United States is turning fascist or communist. What difference does it make to the 99%? These McJobs are shit. The schools teach nothing, and our culture and society is dog-eat-dog.

The solution starts with the indvidual and they become the real change (not 0's change) in the world that they want to see.

Mainstream media in full on meltdown mode: "Donald Trump Had Swastika Tattoo Removed from Forehead", "Bernie Sanders Has Already Lost So Badly That He Publicly Apologized for Running in the First Place".

Indeed. Check this clip out of MSNBC trying to race bait citizens at a Trump rally and distract their viewers, and what an absolute failure it is. The news anchor's expression and reaction is priceless:

"...Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad."-Ludwig von MisesSocialism

Looks like Mises knew the BuyBull better than most Christfags.

• "...not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own, but all things were common property to them." Acts 4:32• "...and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need." Acts 4:35

Still peddling your limited assortment of epithets, I see? You truly are adorable, Ms. Thyme. I don't suppose daddy fiddled you when you were younger, all the while whispering the "great works" of Mises into your innocent, beckoning ear, hmm?

Perhaps while he was gently (or roughly; whatever floats your boat!) sliding into and out of your tender posterior, he'd reinforce your sense of worthlessness by constantly reminding you that regardless of his fascination with your poop-hole, you'd never -- and I do mean never -- hold the same level of influence over his heart as that of his Messiah, Mises. No wonder you idolize the man sooooo very much. After all, it has been instilled (or inseminated) in you from a wee young age.

P.S. By the way, I up-voted you because you're AWESOME! Just so you're abundantly aware. ;)

History will not be kind to you and those that share your boxed in view. The teachings of morality have been hijacked and plagarized by religion. It amazing how a story grows, as its told by one person, Then you would see pinochio's nose grow. Youve been suckered.

We'll find out, in the end- when we meet Jesus Christ- for the final judgment:

The Final Judgment

31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.32 Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.33 And he will place the sheep on his right, but the goats on the left.34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you?39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers,[a] you did it to me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,43 I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’44 Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’45 Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Save it for your church friends. I get enough of that pap from my wife. If there is one thing I hate (there are many) it is a pushy Christian. In your own lingo, stop sowing pearls before swine. When someone lets you know they don't believe as you do lighten up.

seek truth-first off, fuck off. religion is why this world is so fucked up.

why don't you just go kill someone or your self and express your faith as the ultimate sacrfice?that is what you and your followers always end up doing. usually killing non-beleivers. yup war, yup killlers. thou shall not kill. can you comprehend your own beliefs? killers, that is all your beliefs ever leads to. history tells me this and that is why i'm out....

The assertion is still false even if this were so. Far more have been killed in secular wars than religious.

I am yet always fascinated by those who lived in the 20th century, saw the tens of millions killed by atheistic regimes, and then conclude in lockstep with Lenin and Stalin that "religion must be the problem".

Who says religion requires a god? That's the false message we get, that only those who believe in supernatural beings are religous. Many athiests are just as rigidly dogmatic in their beliefs as any christian.

Any time you put up one idea as the end all and be all of human existance, you are on a dangerous path. Centering human existance around the state was clearly a grievous error, but we still haven't figured out that centering human existance around the idea of private property will prove to be just as harmful. People who die of disease and starvation are just as dead as those killed by a soviet AK-47.

Wrong, halfwit. In the end, you will have no reward more and no advantage over General Custer's dead horse or Captain Kidd's dead parakeet. Bible (or at least the one book therein worth reading) says so.

Ecclesiastes 9:5-10 For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing; they have no further reward, and even their name is forgotten...in the realm of the dead, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom.

Ecclesiastes 3:19-21 Surely the fate of human beings is like that of the animals; the same fate awaits them both: As one dies, so dies the other. All have the same breath; humans have no advantage over animals. All go to the same place; all come from dust, and to dust all return. Who knows if the human spirit rises upward and if the spirit of the animal goes down into the earth?"

It's ok. I get it. Daddy wasn't merely enchanted with Mises and your pooper (not necessarily in that order), he must have been a raving bible-basher to boot! No wonder you have such disdain for Christianity and Christians. Can't honestly say that I blame you... :/

You don't mind if I take a turn on the "Thyme-train," do you?? Choo-chooooooooooo!!!! :D :D :D

Depending on which country from behind the Iron Curtain. Yugoslavia, maybe, the other ones, not so much.

After collectivization, people were allowed to own EXTREMELY small land plots, an average not more than 1.5 Acres so a family couldn't have lived or started a business off that land. In some countries sacrificing cows for your own benefit was prohibited (smaller animals like pigs, sheep and hens were allowed), so if you owned a cow you could only use the milk, and when the time came for sacrificing it you were forced to give it up to the Cooperative Unit or face jail time.

Every one had a job, but the jobs were given were people were needed, so people were uprooted and distributed in different parts of country depending on their skills and skill necessity.

Every family got an apartment and the size was given depending on the family size. Usually 1room/couple + 1room/kid so a family with 2 kids would get an 3room apartment at most.

Some landlines were shared between 2 families, so whichever picked up first would answer the phone. receiving another line would take between 2-5 years.

Buying a color TV set or a car would work like this: your name on a list and in a couple of years you'd get your turn.

People bitched and moaned only in private circles, and most of them were marked as "suspects" when the secret police would find out (from informants, common people ratting on others). People usually saved money because they didn't have much to spend it on. Imagine 2,3 brands (AT MOST) of every product, and just utility, nothing stylish. I suppose was better than in China where they had just that robe/jumpsuit you see them wearing in old movies. LOL

+1 fact is that behind the Iron Curtain there were huge differences between let's say Yugoslavia and Romania, or even Eastern Germany and Hungary

back to the article:

"John Adams had it right in his 1780 letter to Jonathan Jackson, as quoted above. He understood that the old method of thought control – that of kings ordering their vassals what to believe – had had its day. It had never been fully effective, as the vassal was free to decide whether he believed the king. But, as early as 1780, the future would belong to those politicians who were skilled in giving the public “A” and “B” choices."

historically, that's bullshit

there were as many instances of vassals ordering kings what to do or think as the other way round

take Poland's Golden Freedom as example

basically, whenever ZH articles talk about vassallage, I see there is no decent grounding in history around except for the most obvious cases of Absolutism

the problem there is that England did have a spell of Absolutism, and this is still poisoning the whole historical approach in many English-speaking countries, starting with the school curriculum giving a lot of space to the ramblings of Hobbes

two dominant parties are both a feature and a bug of the FPTP electoral system. but I don't see Americans ever going to look properly into that. too little interest and/or understanding for constitutional politics or ideology for that

basically, if you know only about one constitution and one electoral system... you don't know much about neither constitutions nor electoral systems

it is, at the end, as if you knew only one person of the opposite sex, without any chance at comparisons